Cheap Intel Optane to Speed Up HDD?

[Roger Wilco]

Hi all,

Would it be worthwhile to invest in one of the smaller m.2 Intel Optane drives to speed up my existing 2 TB Seagate Barracuda? I realize a new SSD is the fastest option, but I would like to continue waiting for higher capacity SSDs at cheaper prices.

Is a 32GB optane drive sufficient?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I assume you mean this with an intention of caching the 2TB HDD. The answer, of course, should be "yes -- you can." In context of the now-stale Intel ISRT feature from a few generations ago, the maximum size of the SSD caching device was defined as 64 GB. Right now, I'm caching a 2TB SSD to a 256GB NVME, but I've found for the most part that I'd still get a vast improvement over a 2TB HDD spec if the NVME were merely 32 to 64GB. However, the Optane of 32GB is going to get a lot of work, so you'd wonder what sort of TBW life-span spec you would have with it. Did I see somewhere that the Optanes such as you mention were rated at ~ 300 TBW?

 

[cbn]

Here is a video comparing WD 4TB Red 3.5" 7200 rpm HDD vs. 16GB Optane + WD 4TB Red 3.5" 7200 rpm HDD (booting and opening apps timed with a stop watch):

Hard drive:

Boot 1 minute 5 seconds
Office 10 seconds
Blizzard Battle.net 16 seconds
Overwatch 29 seconds

16GB Optane + Hard drive:

Boot 39 seconds
Office 2 to 3 seconds
Blizzard Battle.net 6 to7 seconds
Overwatch 17 to 18 seconds

The 32GB would have twice the capacity and about 50% more Sequential read.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Thank you for the response guys. I actually have a 128 GB SSD boot drive. The 2 TB HDD is my main storage drive for games and whatnot. After doing some research, it appears that Optane can only cache a boot drive?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Thank you for the response guys. I actually have a 128 GB SSD boot drive. The 2 TB HDD is my main storage drive for games and whatnot. After doing some research, it appears that Optane can only cache a boot drive?

This may not help, because I'm still coming up to speed with Optane XPoint. But they are supposed to be NVME devices.

Let us assume you are referring to the ISRT feature of Intel chipsets. (Are you?) I had once used ISRT in my Sandy Bridge system of 2011, but I never explored the possibility of caching a drive other than the boot-system disk.

But, as people roll their eyes at my mention of it (again), I guarantee that a $30 purchase of the lifetime license for Romex PrimoCache has no such limits. I see no reason why you can't use the Optane NVME as a caching SSD for any number of SATA devices, SSD or HDD.

Check my Anvil benchies in this Romex forum thread:

http://www.romexsoftware.com/bbs2/en-us/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=4512

An Optane disk might show some serious improvement for the 4K reads and writes -- without adding the tier of RAM-caching.

 

[aigomorla]

Thank you for the response guys. I actually have a 128 GB SSD boot drive. The 2 TB HDD is my main storage drive for games and whatnot. After doing some research, it appears that Optane can only cache a boot drive?

you can not use optane as an accelerator on a secondary drive.

https://communities.intel.com/thread/114013

It can only be used on the boot drive.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

you can not use optane as an accelerator on a secondary drive.

https://communities.intel.com/thread/114013

It can only be used on the boot drive.

Are you referring to Intel's proprietary caching, like ISRT?

Because -- I already said in a previous post -- if Optane can be used as an ordinary NVME drive, it can be configured with Primocache to accelerate any drive or combination of drives.

Now I'm looking at the intel forum thread you linked. This confirms my suspicion: Intel won't promote any other options but its proprietary SRT feature, which is a faux-proprietary feature. That discussion is only consistent with SRT as it was originally developed.

The Romex software for a $30 lifetime license, can cache AHCI, NVME and RAID COMBINATIONS from multiple controllers at the same time, if needed. [They would be "needed," unless a single controller can be configured to provide any combination of those modes at the same time; and I don't think controller BIOSes' work that way.] It is a Swiss-Army-knife of caching features.* It will work in a complex configuration as I suggest, but I'd recommend the KISS principle. You can load up on 32 or 64GB of RAM as you might wish, throw in a 480GB 900P, tie in all the SATA drives whatever the storage mode, "skin that smokewagon and go to work."

You could immediately begin doing as I suggest here by simply buying an Intel 900P PCIE x4 drive-card, preparing it as a cache volume, and installing PrimoCache.

I would think, even so, that as a general purpose desktop powerhouse, unless you're working with very large files on very large disks and very large SSDs, you'd be better with the smaller ~ 250GB 900P and either 16GB or 32GB of RAM. My personal experience with an 8GB RAM cache and a 250 GB NVME, suggests that one could do great with those modest capabilities, for a boot-system disk and maybe 2x 2TB SATA devices.

Another thread started by VirtualLarry has educated me about the 4K random read and write tests on an Optane. That's where the Optane will surpass the performance of a Pro or Evo 960. If it's used as a caching device, you'll get stellar random bench results from a cached HDD that will seem . . . if not supernatural . . . then impressive.
======================
* Samsung had provided RAPID for its SSD drives through Magician. This, also is proprietary, but nevertheless faux-proprietary. Romex PrimoCache simply replaces RAPID with its RAM-caching feature, which can be added in a two-tiered caching configuration. While it may seem to add complexity, it all works smoothly in combination with an NVME-SSD-caching drive. Nobody would want to use an SATA SSD as a caching drive anymore, but of course you could do what the software had been meant to do before NVME product releases.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Are you referring to Intel's proprietary caching, like ISRT?

There are two Intel technologies for caching. One, is Optane Memory, and works only with Optane Memory devices(though 800P is also supposed to work). Second is through Rapid Storage Technology driver's Smart Response Technology. Second works because Optane Memory devices are also plain NVMe devices.

Smart Response Technology can be used to accelerate secondary drives using Optane, which would be a way of using for pre-Kabylake+200 series chipset users. Early versions or SRT didn't support secondary drives, but its changed and can accelerate any drive.

There is some benefit to systems that have Optane Memory support, as the device is more deeply integrated with the system than it is with other ones. So there's partial benefit happening just after the required, initial boot it asks you for installation.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-3d-xpoint-memory,5032-4.html

You'll see the SRT-accelerated 600p is slower than Optane Memory + HDD under some scenarios with low queue depth.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

There are two Intel technologies for caching. One, is Optane Memory, and works only with Optane Memory devices(though 800P is also supposed to work). Second is through Rapid Storage Technology driver's Smart Response Technology. Second works because Optane Memory devices are also plain NVMe devices.

Smart Response Technology can be used to accelerate secondary drives using Optane, which would be a way of using for pre-Kabylake+200 series chipset users. Early versions or SRT didn't support secondary drives, but its changed and can accelerate any drive.

There is some benefit to systems that have Optane Memory support, as the device is more deeply integrated with the system than it is with other ones. So there's partial benefit happening just after the required, initial boot it asks you for installation.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-optane-3d-xpoint-memory,5032-4.html

You'll see the SRT-accelerated 600p is slower than Optane Memory + HDD under some scenarios with low queue depth.

Well, that is useful information, but the 900P devices use Optane 3D Xpoint and are also regular NVME devices. They are also PCIE x4 devices, as opposed to the 800P which are x2. But the proof of the pudding for use of the technology with a hardware-agnostic software program like PrimoCache would be the benchmarks you'd get with the 900P. I have little doubt that the technology would prove out under that scenario, without the purely Intel proprietary features you cite.

I can understand how some would have an aversion to the third-party software as means to enable these various caching features. On the other hand, it dismisses any imperative of replacing hardware just to take advantage of all the up-to-date Intel hardware features. And it means that I can mix controllers whether they are Intel hardware (chipsets, etc.) or not.

Consider this. As I've said, I have a 960 EVO 250GB NVME filling a PCIE slot exclusively for caching. I'm only getting sub-100MB/s 4K bench results using it without the RAM-caching feature. It represents a $130 investment in my "experiment" with what could be done with NVME devices in this regard. I could consider replacing it with a 280GB 900P for ~ $350. But adding a RAM-caching tier to caching with the EVO, my 4K scores are closer to double the SEQUENTIAL READ spec for an SATA device. And I think we could parse out how much these aspects have cost me in dollars. I can argue that I didn't really "need" to double my conventional DDR4 RAM from 16 to 32 GB -- I just have more RAM available for caching that can be done sufficiently with 16GB. And the sequential-read and -write spec for the EVO still trumps that of the 900P device.

So obtaining those Optane random specs by simply replacing hardware is not something I'd want to do any time soon. It wouldn't make sense at all for my current system.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Oh, I'm not advocating anything. Just clarifying the confusion regarding SRT and Optane Memory features, which people think are one and the same. SRT is much more general purpose which works with all Intel systems post Ivy Bridge, and even 3rd party devices like the 960 Pro while Optane Memory is quite device specific.

The fastest configuration is still the all-900P system without caching at all. The advantage on the Optane is consistent performance that isn't affected by drive being dirty, or being close to full, and the higher sequential rate of the 960 Pro will in reality be beaten because it can't do that in majority of the situations, and NAND drives are slowed by being close to full or dirty. Of course the 900P is not cheap, which is why drives like the 960 Pro are popular.

For guys like the OP, the lower capacity drives like the 32GB Optane Memory works fine. The 58GB would be better, but he may judge paying less for 32GB stick is more preferrable if he's going to use it as an interim solution until he can get a large capacity SSD. Here in Canada, one shop is selling the 32GB one for $50, that's $40 US.